Re: [P2PSIP] WGLC for draft-ietf-p2psip-share-04

[Emmanuel Baccelli <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thomas,

Thanks. I think the new/updated text fixes the comments I had.

Best,

Emmanuel
Le 17 juin 2015 13:16, "Thomas C. Schmidt" <[e-mail]> a
écrit :

> Hi Emmanuel, all,
>
> On 23.04.2015 11:03, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:
>
>  I have reviewed draft-ietf-p2psip-share-05, and here are my comments.
>>
>>
>> General comments:
>> in my opinion the draft is in good shape and reads well. I have a few
>> nits and editorial suggestions detailed below. I believe these can be
>> addressed quite easily with a quick resubmission and my impression is
>> the doc is ready to go.
>>
>>
> thanks - please find our records below.
>
>
>> Detailed comments:
>>
>> in Section 1: refer to RFC6940 (and which section, if applicable) the
>> first time specific terms are used such as "RELOAD Usage" or "RELOAD
>> security model". Spoiler: I will have a lot of such comments below ;)
>>
>>
> Done: We prepended the statement fixing the relation to RFC6940:
>
>   "[RFC6940] defines the base protocol for REsource LOcation And
>    Discovery (RELOAD) that allows for application-specific extensions by
>    Usages."
>
>  in Section 2: for reader convenience, I suggest listing the key terms
>> (without recalling their definitions) imported from RFC6940, and the
>> p2psip-concepts draft in the paragraph right after the 2119 boilerplate.
>>
>
> Done: We named the most prominent terms:
>
>   " This document uses the terminology and definitions from the RELOAD
>    base [RFC6940] and the peer-to-peer SIP concepts draft
>    [I-D.ietf-p2psip-concepts], in particular the RELOAD Usage, Resource
>    and Kind."
>
>
>> in Section 3.1: in step 3, I suggest being explicit that the 8bit part
>> is a suffix (least significant bits)
>>
>>
> Oh, thanks for that one. We clarified:
>
>   " 3.  Append an 8 bit long short individual index value to those 24 bit
>        of the Node-ID"
>
>  in Section 4.1:
>> - "...Alice is also granted (limited) write access..."
>> Either explain what "limited" means here, or remove this adjective.
>>
>>
> Good point, thanks: The right is actually explained in the following
> sentence, so we removed "(limited)":
>
>    " peer Alice is also granted write access to the ACL as indicated by
>    the allow_delegation flag (ad) set to 1.  This configuration
>    authorizes Alice to store further trust delegations to the Shared
>    Resource, i.e., add items to the ACL."
>
>  - "Note that overwriting existing items in an Access Control List that
>> reference a    different Kind-ID..."
>> Clarify: different from what? I suppose you mean that the overwrite
>> results in changing the Kind-ID
>>
>
> Yes, we clarified:
>
>   "Note that
>    overwriting existing items in an Access Control List with a change in
>    the Kind-ID revokes all trust delegations in the corresponding
>    subtree (see Section 6.2)."
>
>
>> - "The Resource Owner is allowed to overwrite any existing ACL item, but
>> should be aware of its consequences."
>> Either quickly explain / give examples of consequences or remove this
>> sentence.
>>
>
> O.K., we clarified:
>
>   "The Resource Owner is allowed
>    to overwrite any existing ACL item, but should be aware of its
>    consequences on the trust delegation chain."
>
>
>> in Section 5.1:  "The specifications in this document scheme adhere to
>> this paradigm...".
>> add reference to RFC6940 (and the exact section). It will help readers
>> grasp quicker what draft-ietf-p2psip-share specification adds here.
>>
>>
> Done:
>
>   " Each RELOAD node uses a certificate to identify itself using its user
>    name (or Node-ID) while storing data under a specific Resource-ID
>    (see Section 7.3 in [RFC6940]).  The specifications in this document
>    scheme adhere to this paradigm, but.."
>
>  in Section 6.1:
>> - first sentence "Write access ... solely be issued by the Resource
>> Owner."
>> rephrase needed (confusing as readers already know that delegation is
>> possible).
>>
>>
> O.k., we clarified:
>
>   " Write access to a Kind that is intended to be shared with other
>    RELOAD users can solely be *initiated* by the Resource Owner."
>
>  - "... stored in the numerical order... starting with the index of the
>> root item...".
>> I have a (stupid) question: What if the Node-ID of the an authorized
>> peer with ad=1 has a node-ID that is numerically smaller that that of
>> the owner?
>>
>
> That does not matter. Each node has a unique prefix (up to unlikely
> collisions) and writes in its own index space to avoid race conditions (see
> Sect. 3.1). Here we only describe the node-specific indexing.
>
>  I suggest rephrasing in order to clarify this corner case, just to make
>> sure no one is confused?
>>
>>
> We clarified:
>
>      "For each succeeding ACL item, the Resource Owner
>       increments its individual index value by one (see Section 3.1) so
>       that items can be stored in the numerical order of the array index
>       starting with the index of the root item."
>
>
>  in Section 6.5: Step 1. reference "as per RFC 6940 Section X.Y."
>>
>> in Section 6.6: Because it is possible here, I would have preferred to
>> see the last 2 paragraphs written in steps + pseudo-code style
>> if...else..else. But that's a matter of taste.
>>
>>
> I guess ... ;)
>
>
> So, we've updated and submit in a second.
>
> Thanks again,
>
>  Thomas
>
>
>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Yes, that’s fine, thanks.
>>     Alissa
>>
>>     On Apr 21, 2015, at 1:40 AM, Emmanuel Baccelli
>>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>     >
>>     > Hi Alissa,
>>     >
>>     > if it is not too late: I am currently reviewing the document. ETA
>> early next week.
>>     > Sorry for the delay. Is that alright with you?
>>     >
>>     > Best,
>>     >
>>     > Emmanuel
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > P2PSIP mailing list
>>     >[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>>
>>
>>
> --
>
> Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
> ° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                   Berliner Tor 7 °
> ° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group    20099 Hamburg, Germany °
> ° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet                   Fon: [phone]
> °
> ° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt    Fax: [phone]
> °
>